Yes that's the number I found WITHOUT accounting for mining the materials... Just manufacturing the battery.

> Electrolysers also require mining, as do fuel cells, as does any source of heat for reverse gas shift or similar.

Yes but there's far less of those materials required than the sheer amount of battery cells being produced for automobiles.

> Hydrogen (or rather hydrogen derived molecules) are a viable method of seasonal storage, but that doesn't mean most of the hype doesn't exist to greenwash gas or that your talking points aren't propaganda.

Greenwash gas? The whole point of hydrogen is to create it using renewable sources of energy... The whole problem with renewables is storing the energy since they don't produce reliable baseline energy. Hydrogen accomplishes that.

They run on diesel, are easy to operate and close to Ukraine.

Coal production is terrible and I'll never support it.

Hmmm, 500,000 litres of water per ton of lithium. Electrolysis required to create lithium metal. Plus the required dirt being moved, water being moved, energy for electrolysis, etc...

Sounds very energy efficient...

/s

So energy to mine the materials, energy to assemble the battery, energy to recycle the battery after it's useful lifespan (5-10 years)... None of these are ever counted in people's calculations. I tried to find data on energy required to produce the batteries and they still didn't count the mining cost.

I'd wager that hydrogen is more energy efficient over the entire lifespan of a vehicle.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electr...

Lithium mining is expensive and you need to move a lot of dirt to get a little lithium...

100 billion tons of waste and never mind the waste aspect, it takes a lot of energy to move a ton of dirt.

I mean, there's like 1000 Protestant sects and they're all seperate so good luck, but the vast majority don't recognize writings of saints...

Here's a nice article explaining what the early church fathers got wrong from an evangelical perspective: https://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathe...

Just go to any Evangelical or American Protestant heavy website and see how they treat writings that aren't scripture...

Protestants basically ignore that there's a TON of writings from the early church.

Even slightly later writings like John Climacus are still much, much closer to the time of Jesus and the early church than the reformation is, nevermind modern times.

Why not both? Let's face it, the Russian world is shit. Both in terms of freedom and prosperity. Everyone wants freedom and prosperity, calling Ukrainians "greedy" for it is simply insulting.

> There is no evidence that Russia wants to reassert itself over eastern Europe

Just listen to what the Russians actually say... That's the evidence, they say it themselves that they want to reassert their rule over everything that was previously "Russian".

From: https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_L...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine

On the name, including various discussions about the meaning of "Kraj". And the fact that "Krai" is still a type of division of land in Russia.

There's a massive corpus of commentary written from ~400-100 AD, nevermind 1500...

They also threw out books of the Bible that everyone used for the better part of 1500 years.

Jews have the Talmud and other commentaries, Muslims have hadiths, Orthodox and Catholic Christians have centuries of commentaries by saints, similarly Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and others all have many supporting texts, not just a single canonical one.

Yet Protestant Americans are looking for a "perfect" translation so that they can magically understand a text that was never meant to be a single text nevermind interpreted on its own. It's also strange that Protestants trust the Orthodox/Catholic church to decide what is scripture but throw away commentary by saints, including those who lived through the councils that decided what is considered scripture.

There was far more concerted Russification of Ukraine than Polish-ification...

The Ukrainian language is the Ukrainian language, what's spoken in the east is considered a Creole that's a combination of Russian and Ukrainian due to, well, centuries of Russification.

> «kraj» has descended from a Proto-Slavic of *krajь. It can mean «region», «country» or «land»,

Obviously. Every second place here is called "X Kraj". Literally the word used for region still.

> O-krajina" that you are citing can mean «fringe» or «edge» but not «borderland».

Okraj literally means border but it doesn't really matter, edge and border are literally the same thing in English. Dunno why you are insinuating it's different.

Language does evolve though, now there's different words (and more words) for edge, border, suburb, periphery, etc...

It's not clear that Kraj on it's own was "edge" or "border" though. Okraj definitely was however

> Moscow was founded in 1147

So I got one date wrong (I was thinking of Moscow's rise as an actual city state post-Mongol yoke, not the date they made a fort in a swamp especially since the first town was completely destroyed by the Mongols) but first mention of "Ukraine" is 1187. Long before the Russian Empire, before the Mongol invasions, long before Moscow was anything more than a small fort.